By "social media" we mean any large computer network that allows people to interact in shared communities. The big ones of course are Facebook, Twitter (X), and Instagram, but we can't forget newer platforms like Discord and Slack.
Dedicated video sites are off-topic here and YouTube has its own separate thread
.
What we should discuss in this OTC topic are news items, business operations, and activities by the networks themselves, not specific things posted by users. Those should go into threads appropriate to the subjects of those posts. For example, if an actor tweets about a film, we'd discuss that in the Media forum topic for the film, not here. If Facebook changes its policies, that could be discussed here.
The politics, motives, competency and wider business activities of the owners and leaders of social media companies (e.g. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg) are also off-topic — except in situations where they are directly making specific policy for the platform.
Talking about a particular Instagram policy change (or a high-profile ban on a specific user) directly announced by Mark Zuckerberg would be acceptable in this thread, speculating about Zuckerberg's wider motivations wouldn't be.
One exception is Truth Social, due to its connection to Donald Trump. As there is a forum ban on US Politics, all discussion of Truth Social is off-topic and posts about the platform may be thumped.
The thread's also not about "dumb thing [public figure] said on [social media platform]". If there isn't a specific thread related to the subject of the statement, then it's probably gossip and not worth talking about.
The hot topic of the day is Elon Musk's bid to acquire Twitter. We first discussed it in the Computer Thread, starting roughly here
, and I am not going to rehash the entire discussion. Instead, I am going to resume from the last post
:
CNBC: Twitter is reportedly taking another look at Musk takeover bid
Twitter's board is reportedly meeting with Elon Musk and may seek to negotiate on his buyout offer. Musk claims to have secured $46 billion in funding to buy the company at a valuation of $43 billion and is preparing to make a tender offer to its shareholders.
While the board has passed a poison pill, it could be facing resistance to that from groups of shareholders and will want to talk things out rather than face a hostile takeover. It's also possible that Twitter's stock could crash if the offer fails to go through.
Another possible topic was originally posted here
.
Ars Technica: EU to unveil landmark law to force Big Tech to police illegal content
Following on from the recently passed Digital Markets Act, which requires large tech companies to unbundle first-party software from hardware platforms, the proposed Digital Services Act will require medium and large social media platforms and search engines to police hate speech and disinformation while adding additional protections for children against targeted marketing.
It also bans "dark patterns", which manipulate or trick people into clicking on ads or other content. The article doesn't explicitly say what that means, but I assume it includes things like disguising ads to look like parts of a site's user interface, hiding "close" buttons, and such.
For large companies, the requirements would go into effect immediately. For medium companies, they would have a grace period to implement the changes.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, has warned that Big Tech has become “too big to care.”
This phrase, "too big to care", intrigues me. It's an indictment of the idea that these companies have decided that growth and engagement metrics overwhelm any sense of social responsibility.
In my opinion, a law like this would be impossible in the United States, since it would be challenged (likely successfully) on First Amendment grounds.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 8th 2024 at 5:16:31 PM
Formerly Hail Muffins (He/Him)
Oh Christ, to think the deciding factor in our elections could've been fucking Musk.
It was already razor-thin.
But anyway: Post sounds interesting so I signed up to the waiting list, let's see if it ends up amounting to anything.
Edited by OrangeBun on Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:42:51 AM
El sexo es temporal. LA PENITENCIA ES ETERNA!Article's in German, but German Twitter employees Musk tried to fire have joined a union
and are also pushing for the creation of a works council
.
Musk's "firing" of those employees basically violated German labour laws, so obviously people are also suing.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Nov 22nd 2022 at 1:03:34 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from history@Raineh: If I recall, the last I heard about his "check this box if u are cool and hardcore, dont check this box if u are lame and boring >:(" email, he was arguing that failure to opt-in to What If Twitter But Sigma Grindset constituted quitting and therefore was legally not "firing," meaning Twitter didn't have to pay severance or anything.
It's been fun.But Musk was in a friendlier mood on May 5. Two weeks after clinching a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, he texted Bankman-Fried just after midnight and invited him to roll the $100 million stake he had owned for a few months into a privately held Twitter.
But he did, as Musk suggested, contribute his $100 million in stock toward the now-private Twitter. An FTX balance sheet prepared after the takeover closed on Oct. 28, and circulated to investors earlier this month, listed Twitter shares as an “illiquid” asset.
Edited by Ghilz on Nov 22nd 2022 at 9:25:14 AM
Rofl this is social media 101. Even fucking Parler and Truth Social got this correct.
CNBC: Elon Musk has himself to blame for Twitter’s advertising woes, civil rights groups say
tl:dr; Seagull Musk blamed activist groups for supposedly breaking a deal with him not to encourage advertiser boycotts. Said activists such as the NAACP's CEO said there was never any such deal and that it's all on Seagull Musk being irresponsible.
Edited by M84 on Nov 23rd 2022 at 3:00:29 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedhttps://twitter.com/rob_sheridan/status/1595319316249186304
This explains a lot.
Basically, this guy is saying that Space X spends a significant amount of resources isolating Musk and tricking him into thinking he’s seeing what he wants to see and manipulating him into making the decisions that are best for the company because he’s an incompetent buffoon who has no idea what he’s looking at, and Twitter isn’t set up to do that sort of thing, so all of his random whims are being taken seriously and implemented.
Yeah, that's what you get with a celebrity CEO with too much of a personal vision: the board finds ways to manipulate and work around him.
While I have no sympathy for Musk, this is a very toxic situation at the top of Space "X". When management feels it needs to manipulate its CEO like this, that means things are not well.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesIt's like...given that Space X doesn't seem to have a lot of the same institutional problems as, say, Tesla (by which I mean, the random poorly thought out major proclamations like the cancelling of WFH policies with not enough time to arrange things like childcare) and that no one, not even Musk, claims that Musk makes a lot of substantive engineering contributions to Space X, it rings pretty true that Space X is arranged to keep Musk as far away from the actual important stuff as possible without him noticing.
For the months prior to Musk’s takeover, the researchers deemed just one tweet out of the three top 20 lists to be actually hateful, in this case against Jewish people. The others were either quoting another person’s hateful remarks or using the relevant key words in a non-hateful way.
In the weeks after Musk took over Twitter, the same analysis found that hateful tweets became much more prominent among the most popular tweets with potentially toxic language. For tweets using words associated with anti-LGBTQ+ or antisemitic posts, seven of the top 20 posts in each category were now hateful. For popular tweets using potentially racist language, one of the top 20 was judged to be hate speech.
Formerly Hail Muffins (He/Him)
![]()
Sure, it's plausable, but a screenshot of a Tumblr post from someone claiming to be a former Tesla intern is still hardly compelling evidence.
Let's just stick to stuff from verified sources on this thread, just because it fits with our worldview that Musk is a twat doesn't mean it's true.
People have posted stuff that turned out to be lies here more than once, and besides, Musk has already done plenty stupid bullshit as it is.
El sexo es temporal. LA PENITENCIA ES ETERNA!It also checks out in another way: there just is no way that Musk is running five companies as CEO all on his own. Being a CEO of just one tends to be a full time job already.
Why do these boards even allow that? That you can be CEO of an arbitrary number of companies?
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesBecause he just straight up owns them and most of them aren't public at all. The Boring Company and Neuralink have no way to oust him if they wanted to, Telsa would have to follow a specific and detailed process to kick him out (which I still think they're getting increasingly likely to do) and SpaceX is also almost completely private, IIRC, so they don't have much recourse either.

Instagram is also essentially phone-app-only.
I saw something about Tumblr possibly moving towards cross-platform integration with Mastodon, supposedly from someone in its tech department, but I don't know how detailed or reliable that's supposed to be.
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO